Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly assess his application for a blue badge. I have found fault in the Council’s advice that Mr X should apply for mobility related element of a Personal Independence Payment. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice, as we have found no fault in how the Council reached its view on Mr X’s eligibility at the time. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly assess his application for a blue badge in 2025. Mr X says that he was not offered an assessment, and the Council dismissed his application on the grounds he did not automatically qualify under the mobility category. He says his application for a blue badge was approved in 2026, after he provided a copy of his updated Personal Independence Payment award.
2. Mr X says he was left without a blue badge, and this affected his mobility and wellbeing

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a @council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X also complained about an application for a blue badge that he made in 2022. This part of Mr X’s complaint is late, and I see no good reason as to why he could not have complained to us sooner. Therefore, I will not investigate this part of his complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and Council policy

The Blue Badge scheme

9. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
10. Since August 2019 the guidance (the Guidance) has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
11. The Guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance is non-statutory. This means councils do not have to follow it, but most councils do. We expect councils to explain if they decide not to follow such guidance.
12. The Guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
13. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
1. where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge.
2. Where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one or more of three criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:

1. drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
2. have been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
3. be at risk of serious harm when walking or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.

14. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.
15. The Guidance strongly recommends that every applicant who is refused a badge should be given a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal. It is insufficient to simply state the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria
16. An applicant should not be refused a badge solely on the grounds that they have not been awarded (or no longer receive) the Higher Rate of the Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance or the appropriate PIP score. In such cases, the applicant should be assessed under the ‘eligible subject to further assessment’ criteria. In addition, applicants should not be advised that they need to apply for DLA or PIP in order to determine badge eligibility. (Paragraph 6.6).

Council policy

17. The Council’s policy states a blue badge will not be issued on the basis of a diagnosis of a particular condition alone.
18. A badge can be awarded to any individual who has an enduring and substantial disability, which causes them to:

• be unable to walk
• experience very considerable difficulty whilst walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress
• be at risk of serious harm when walking or pose a risk of serious harm to any person when walking.

19. It says the term 'enduring' here means the disability is not expected to improve to the extent that you would no longer be eligible for a badge within the next 3 years.

What happened

20. Below is a brief chronology of key events. It is not meant to detail everything that happened.
21. Mr X has several health diagnoses, including chron’s disease, gout, depression and anxiety.
22. In August 2025, Mr X sent an email to the Council requesting a blue badge. Mr X said he received a PIP payment under the daily living component.
23. The Council responded to Mr X and explained the daily living component did not meet the criteria for a blue badge. It said Mr X needed to show evidence of a diagnosed permanent and substantial walking disability.
24. Mr X requested a discretionary assessment and provided medical evidence to support his health diagnoses. He provided a copy of an NHS letter and letters from his GP dated July 2024 and September 2024 in support of his PIP application. The letters confirmed Mr X’s health diagnoses and stated:

• Mr X reported, when walking in supermarkets he often could not make it from the car park to the store entrance without distress, discomfort or risk of falling.
• Mr X found it difficult to walk further than the length of 5-6 parked cars before experiencing significant pain.
• Mr X could not walk 50 metres, reliably, safely and in a reasonable time.
• Chron’s disease diagnosis affected Mr X’s bowel habits.
• Mr X was on anti-depressants and suffered from anxiety and fatigue.

25. On 12 September 2025, the Council wrote to Mr X and explained the evidence was still insufficient for consideration of an application for a blue badge. The Council advised Mr X to provide a more detailed report to show the severity of his gout condition and how this affected his mobility or apply for mobility related element of Personal Independence Payment.
26. Mr X complained to the Council and said it had mishandled his request for a blue badge. He said despite submitting medical evidence his application was dismissed on the grounds that he did not score the required points under the PIP mobility component. Mr X said he was told that crohn's disease did not qualify and that gout was not a permanent disability. Mr X said he was also told that toileting needs did not qualify, but the guidance made clear that applicants should not be refused solely due to not having the right PIP score and that councils must consider discretionary assessments, particularly for hidden disabilities.
27. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said:

• Mr X had not submitted a formal application.
• despite the absence of an application the evidence was reviewed initially by a mobility officer and subsequently reviewed by a senior officer.
• five documents were submitted, including GP and specialist reports referencing crohn’s disease, gout, depression, and anxiety-related symptoms.

28. The Council said the guidance was considered and discretionary assessments for hidden disabilities were aligned with the DfT’s criteria, particularly:

• applicants must demonstrate they are “unable to undertake any journey” because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress.
• this is typically evidenced by a PIP award of 10 points under Descriptor E of the “Planning and Following a journey” activity.

The Council explained Mr X’s PIP award did not include any points under this descriptor and therefore did not meet the threshold for hidden disability eligibility.

29. The Council said a discretionary assessment was not formally offered because:

• no application was submitted.
• the medical evidence did not demonstrate a permanent or substantial disability affecting mobility.
• Mr X was awarded 4 points under the mobility component of PIP, which was below the 8-point threshold for automatic eligibility.
• crohn’s and gout were intermittent and not considered permanent mobility impairments under the guidance.

30. The Council acknowledged that Mr X had reported walking difficulties, falls, and psychological distress which were reviewed. However:

• the fall referenced was not linked to a current ongoing mobility issue.
• psychological distress described was situational (e.g. anxiety in car parks) and not at the level required for hidden disability eligibility.

The Council decided the documentation did not demonstrate that Mr X was unable to undertake any journey due to overwhelming distress.

31. The Council said it would reassess Mr X’s eligibility for a blue badge, should he submit a formal application with updated evidence, including confirmation of any changes to his PIP award or new medical documentation demonstrating a permanent and substantial disability.

Analysis

32. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide if someone is eligible for a blue badge or assess the strength of evidence provided. Instead, we look at whether the Council followed the guidance and considered relevant information when reaching its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how the Council made its decision, we cannot criticise the merits of it or say it should have reached a different outcome.
33. The Council was required to reach a decision on Mr X’s request for a blue badge and share this with Mr X. This could be under the mobility criteria or the non-visible disability criteria, or both.
34. The Council carried out an initial review of Mr X’s request to determine whether he was eligible under the automatic criteria or clearly ineligible for a blue badge.
35. The Council considered the information and medical evidence Mr X provided regarding his visible and non-visible disabilities. The Council reached its view he was not eligible under both criteria. The Council advised Mr X to provide more detailed information to show the severity of his gout condition and how this affected his mobility or apply for mobility related element of Personal Independence Payment.
36. I understand Mr X believes the Council dismissed his application on the grounds he did not automatically qualify under the mobility category. However, the evidence and communication available shows it had accepted his diagnosis of gout, but it was not satisfied the information around the diagnosis and other medical evidence demonstrated a permanent and substantial walking disability, as required under the criteria.
37. Mr X said the Council failed to consider his hidden disability and toileting needs and should have offered him a discretionary assessment. The Council’s communication with Mr X identified that he had reported psychological distress and anxiety related to toilet access. The Council decided the evidence did not show this prevented Mr X from undertaking any journey without causing overwhelming distress.
38. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view on Mr X’s non-visible disabilities against the blue badge criteria. Without fault in the decision-making process, I cannot criticise the merits of the Council’s decision. Further, I do not find the Council’s decision was based solely on the grounds that Mr X did not automatically qualify under the mobility category based on his PIP score.
39. However, I do find fault with the Council’s advice that Mr X should apply for mobility related element of Personal Independence Payment. The guidance is clear that applicants should not be advised they need to apply for PIP to determine badge eligibility. But this did not cause Mr X an injustice, because the Council has demonstrated it would have still reached the same decision, that Mr X did not meet the criteria.
40. When Mr X brought his complaint to us, he had completed the Council’s complaints procedure, and it made a final decision to refuse his application.
41. During my investigation, Mr X applied for PIP mobility and subsequently applied again for a blue badge. The guidance states, with the required points for PIP, blue badges are approved automatically. Therefore, Mr X was automatically entitled to a badge without further assessment.
42. Mr X now has the outcome he wanted, and any further investigation would not now lead to a different outcome for him.

Back to top

Action

43. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will remind relevant staff that applicants should not be advised they need to apply for PIP to determine badge eligibility.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault not causing injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman